Washington (CNN) - It has been 150 years since the Civil War began with the first shots at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, and in some respects views of the Confederacy and the role that slavery played in the events of 1861 still divide the public, according to a new national poll.

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

When asked the reason behind the Civil War, whether it was fought over slavery or states' rights, 52 percent of all Americas said the leaders of the Confederacy seceded to keep slavery legal in their state, but a sizeable 42 percent minority said slavery was not the main reason why those states seceded.

"The results of that question show that there are still racial, political and geographic divisions over the Civil War that still exists a century and a half later," CNN Polling Director Holland Keating said.

When broken down by political party, most Democrats said southern states seceded over slavery, independents were split and most Republicans said slavery was not the main reason that Confederate states left the Union.

Republicans were also most likely to say they admired the leaders of the southern states during the Civil War, with eight in 10 Republicans expressing admiration for the leaders in the South, virtually identical to the 79 percent of Republicans who admired the northern leaders during the Civil War.

The survey polled 824 adults via telephone between April 9 and April 10. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Mihais

12 Apr 11,, 21:17

Sir,don't you have a feeling of deja vu?

Roosveltrepub

12 Apr 11,, 22:03

Sir,don't you have a feeling of deja vu?

Even in the south it is a minority of whites and a smaller minority of total populations. The fact is the war had a huge price but left a great nation in it's wake that would not of come to exist otherwise.

Bigfella

13 Apr 11,, 04:04

One of the things that amuse me most about white Americans in particular who still have deep feelings about the ACW is the overlap between them & people who tell foreigners to 'get over' violent American interventions or serious interference with internal politics that are often within the memory of most WABbers. ;)

Chogy

13 Apr 11,, 12:56

One of the things that amuse me most about white Americans in particular who still have deep feelings about the ACW is the overlap between them & people who tell foreigners to 'get over' violent American interventions or serious interference with internal politics that are often within the memory of most WABbers. ;)

Can I tell my Muslim debate opponents on other forums to "get over" the Crusades? It's amazing how far back people will grasp at offenses, real or imagined. ;)

Mihais

13 Apr 11,, 13:47

You could,but its better to ask them to apologize for the conquest of the Roman ME (and the elimination of most of Christendom there)as well as most of the Balkans ans S Spain.Also let's not forget the Barbary Pirates and the millions enslaved.

People tell me that I have the memory of an elephant:biggrin: .I'm also polite,I always tell people:you first''.

zraver

13 Apr 11,, 16:03

You could,but its better to ask them to apologize for the conquest of the Roman ME (and the elimination of most of Christendom there)as well as most of the Balkans ans S Spain.Also let's not forget the Barbary Pirates and the millions enslaved.

People tell me that I have the memory of an elephant:biggrin: .I'm also polite,I always tell people:you first''.

And the destruction of Classical Persia, the introduction of black African slavery on the globals tage, and the stupidity and greed of Ala ad-Did Muhammed.

Blue

14 Apr 11,, 05:30

One of the things that amuse me most about white Americans in particular who still have deep feelings about the ACW is the overlap between them & people who tell foreigners to 'get over' violent American interventions or serious interference with internal politics that are often within the memory of most WABbers. ;)

You've got a point there. Although I am one of those with deep feelings, I don't think I am one to tell others to get over it. The War btwn the states was recent though in historical terms. Some of the very old grudges mentioned I don't think matter anymore, as will the War btwn the states when all us dumb ol southern white people are gone......along with all the other freedoms our country currently enjoys(has left anyway).

Blue

14 Apr 11,, 05:32

url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

Thoughts, comments, Maj?

My friend in Memphis sent me this story a few days ago, you beat me to posting it.:tongue:

I think it is quite accurate.

Bigfella

14 Apr 11,, 10:53

Can I tell my Muslim debate opponents on other forums to "get over" the Crusades? It's amazing how far back people will grasp at offenses, real or imagined. ;)

Please do.

The fact that an event has ongoing consequences doesn't give people an excuse to get emotional about it. It especially doesn't give them an excuse to use it to justify or excuse bad behavour. I can feel horror or anger that my people were invaded & brutalized by Cromwell or left to die in the hundreds of thousands in the potato famine, but those feelings are my own mental construct & no more valid than I might feel about the victims of Genghis Khan, Cortez, Pappenheim or Shaka. Once we can no longer interact with those involved events belong in books. That doesn't mean they are no longer important or that we should no longer care, but that how much we care needs to have sensible limits.

Bigfella

14 Apr 11,, 11:09

You've got a point there. Although I am one of those with deep feelings, I don't think I am one to tell others to get over it. The War btwn the states was recent though in historical terms. Some of the very old grudges mentioned I don't think matter anymore, as will the War btwn the states when all us dumb ol southern white people are gone......along with all the other freedoms our country currently enjoys(has left anyway).

Eric,

We may have different ideas of 'recent', or at least different ideas of its significance. I firmly believe that history we can no longer interact with needs to be drained of emotion as a wound is drained of pus. The failure to do so leads to the same result in both cases - toxicity. As an historian I am a firm believer in remembering, learning from & even engaging with the past, but I am also a firm believer in limits. Past IS past. It is important to understand it, re-examine it, celebrate it & most importantly get it right, but it is also important not to drag it constantly into the present. Santayana famously observed that 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to relive it'. I would propose the addendum that those who cannot exit the past are condemned to constantly poison the present. People must understant their history, but more importantly, they must understand that it is history.

dave lukins

14 Apr 11,, 11:31

Eric,

We may have different ideas of 'recent', or at least different ideas of its significance. I firmly believe that history we can no longer interact with needs to be drained of emotion as a wound is drained of pus. The failure to do so leads to the same result in both cases - toxicity. As an historian I am a firm believer in remembering, learning from & even engaging with the past, but I am also a firm believer in limits. Past IS past. It is important to understand it, re-examine it, celebrate it & most importantly get it right, but it is also important not to drag it constantly into the present. Santayana famously observed that 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to relive it'. I would propose the addendum that those who cannot exit the past are condemned to constantly poison the present. People must understant their history, but more importantly, they must understand that it is history.

Great post BF. Do you think it is correct for our Leaders to apologize for the wrong doings of our forefathers?

Mihais

14 Apr 11,, 11:52

Past becomes past when the fundamental causes cease to exist.Roman conquest of Greece or the wars between nomad tribes of the steppes are no longer relevant because there are no longer events caused by them.The crusades and the rest were unimportant for several hundreds of years because there was no ongoing conflict between the Muslim world and the West.Now there is a nascent Muslim world claiming its place under the sun,like it was the case before the rise of the West.In broad terms,both them and us are descendants of those who fought the crusades and the earlier jihhads,both biologically and in the sphere of ideas.Much has changed ,of course,but not all.To suggest that people should not think in emotional terms about events in the past linked to present ones is not feasible in the real world.

Sgt.,if I get you right,you think there is a connection between current efforts to curtail the attacks on freedom with those 150 years ago.Same broad ideals(the details differ of course),same men.
On another similar issue,for example,if someone thinks Poland will not look with dread at any close relations between Russia and Germany is a fool's fool.They got burned twice in 200 years.Of course Koszciusko,Poniatowsky,Catherine the Great,Hitler are all dead,as well those contemporary with them.No emotions should be involved,yet geopolitics haven't changed THAT much.Past is present and it will be that way until another force changes the paradigm .

Bigfella

14 Apr 11,, 11:54

Great post BF. Do you think it is correct for our Leaders to apologize for the wrong doings of our forefathers?

To a point Dave. There are a lot of variables. I think it can be argued that if there is institutional continuity, a serious wrong & no previous apology then it can make sense - especially it can ease genuine pain. Even when the event is far distant (England & slavery for instance) there can be some value in admitting the commission of a great wrong & apologizing. Words cost little & they can be a way of cutting adrift the past rather than reviving it. Just as some people cling too much to the past, others dispatch inconvenient pasts with unseemly haste (japan & WW2, Europe's brutal imperialism). Sometimes an apology is a useful way to remember.

I don't think such an admission brands the present society as 'guilty' or necessarily commits it to reparations or compensation of some sort. Compensation may be appropriate if victims are still alive, or perhaps beyond (thinking here of return of stolen property, land etc), but that is case by case.

Doktor

14 Apr 11,, 12:32

Past becomes past when the fundamental causes cease to exist.Roman conquest of Greece or the wars between nomad tribes of the steppes are no longer relevant because there are no longer events caused by them.The crusades and the rest were unimportant for several hundreds of years because there was no ongoing conflict between the Muslim world and the West.Now there is a nascent Muslim world claiming its place under the sun,like it was the case before the rise of the West.In broad terms,both them and us are descendants of those who fought the crusades and the earlier jihhads,both biologically and in the sphere of ideas.Much has changed ,of course,but not all.To suggest that people should not think in emotional terms about events in the past linked to present ones is not feasible in the real world.

Mihais, the Ottoman Empire had muslim religion and occupied much of todays hardcore Muslim countries. Tell me for which several hundreds of years you mean? They were pushed back from the Balcans almost a century ago, they were here for ~5 centuries before that, having tit for tat with Austrians every couple of decades. Oh, and they came here after the crusades escorting the crusaders home :redface:

On another similar issue,for example,if someone thinks Poland will not look with dread at any close relations between Russia and Germany is a fool's fool.They got burned twice in 200 years.Of course Koszciusko,Poniatowsky,Catherine the Great,Hitler are all dead,as well those contemporary with them.No emotions should be involved,yet geopolitics haven't changed THAT much.Past is present and it will be that way until another force changes the paradigm.

Is there any particular reason the Polish should be uneasy? Or anyone else in Europe for that matter. We all have some things that are not settled with the past.

Back to the ACW polls, I think it's kinda expected. It's still fresh 150 in terms of history means nothing. And also it depends how do you ask the questions.

From a totally ignorant-on-the-subject pov I would answer that I fency the South (for their flag) and that the war was not about the human right or slavery, but purely for $$$ as all the other wars. What would that mean?

Mihais

14 Apr 11,, 12:50

Doktor- Last 300,since Vienna.AFAIK,our corner of the world never got involved in the crusades,besides allowing crusader armies to pass.Neither SE Europe can be described as the core of the west,but rather its periphery.We HALTED the Ottomans,while the West proper became so dominant that the Ottoman Empire was for the last 200 hundreds of its existence not an equal rival for the west.In that sense there was no conflict for supremacy,because that was already achieved.Russians and Austrians had their wars with the Ottomans,but they were halted in their tracks by the French and British because of the power games in a EUROPEAN world order.
Nobody expects now another Katyn,but Poland between those 2 would be much less important than otherwise.In that sense,nothing has changed since 1700's or inter-war era.That stands true for my beloved motherland,when it bring its sh1t together and start to have a foreign policy of its own.:mad:

Doktor

14 Apr 11,, 21:59

I wasn't referring to our beloved countries as a core or west of something. I was saying that the Ottoman Empire was core of todays Muslim world (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Iraq-part, Iran...).

You are referring to Austrians and Russians, I remember English on their SW flank, as well. You don't need open conflict, the threat is sufficient.

Edit:
P.S. I think we totally jacked this thread which is not fair:redface:

Mihais

14 Apr 11,, 22:42

Hijacking threads is the official religion of WAB:Dancing-Banana:

You missed my point.I'm not talking of whether the Ottomans held or not Muslim lands.I'm saying the Muslim world,Ottoman or otherwise ceased to be a contender against the west after Vienna(as a general point of reference)because it was too weak to be.The West held the top position,thus EVERY conflict involving Western nations was for supremacy inside the Western world order.Everyone else,be they Muslims,Indians,Africans,American Indians were involved in various conflicts between European powers,but always as secondary actors,as allies of one or another Western nation.Think of how the Ottomans survived and managed to hold territories in SE Europe in 19th century.It managed to do so only with French and British support,who feared Russia gaining access to Med Sea.Those 2 even went into Crimean war on Ottomans behalf.
Compare that with the situation that existed from the rise of Islam,with a clear line separating Christianity and Islam.There were a few occasions when some Christians were allied with the muslims as some Serbs were after first Kossopolje;viceversa,some muslims,like the Order of the Assasins were at times allied with Crusader states.But exceptions aren't the rule and should be treated as accidents.The rule was that the 2 civilizations kicked their butts everywhere they met.Even supposed havens for tolerance like Sicily or Spain were soon ''handled''. No English king or German duke would have shed a tear for the destruction of the Ottomans,had it occurred in the 1300's(hypotheticaly speaking).

Doktor

14 Apr 11,, 23:00

Hijacking threads is the official religion of WAB :Dancing-Banana:

... now I am a believer.

Тhink that the one missing the point here is you:rolleyes:

You were saying that when something cease to pose a threat becomes a history. I was referring to the Muslims in general and how the Ottoman Empire is history for a while, yet the fear of Islamisation of Europe still exists.

Shek

15 Apr 11,, 02:12

Thoughts, comments, Maj?

My friend in Memphis sent me this story a few days ago, you beat me to posting it.:tongue:

I think it is quite accurate.

Eric,

I'm not surprised by the numbers. It goes back to our thread that discussed the Civil War narrative that you were taught growing up - there's a wide variety in how the subject is taught and thus, in how Americans interpret it. I'm sure that many of the folks who voted for state's rights don't realize that the first ever draft on our continent was implemented by the Confederacy or are aware of the other restrictions on personal rights that the Confederacy implemented. I'm also sure that many who voted for slavery probably believe that the North originally set out fighting for slavery when that just isn't the case. It'd be interesting to see what folks would answer in a free text form once you bring some of these facts to light.

Blue

15 Apr 11,, 02:35

Eric,

We may have different ideas of 'recent', or at least different ideas of its significance. I firmly believe that history we can no longer interact with needs to be drained of emotion as a wound is drained of pus. The failure to do so leads to the same result in both cases - toxicity. As an historian I am a firm believer in remembering, learning from & even engaging with the past, but I am also a firm believer in limits. Past IS past. It is important to understand it, re-examine it, celebrate it & most importantly get it right, but it is also important not to drag it constantly into the present. Santayana famously observed that 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to relive it'. I would propose the addendum that those who cannot exit the past are condemned to constantly poison the present. People must understant their history, but more importantly, they must understand that it is history. You must remember the past, but you cannot let it rule you, or it will ruin you. You must not forget, but you must not it become the poison you speak of. Those who let it poison them, are the ones that need to get over it. The war is fresh with so may as it still resonates in symbolism and much more in everyday American life, therefore, I think it carries great weight as many of the subjects stemming from the war have never been resolved for many.

The article however just draws similarities btwn events today and the events of yore that led up to the war(sans the slavery bit).

Blue

15 Apr 11,, 02:39

Sgt.,if I get you right,you think there is a connection between current efforts to curtail the attacks on freedom with those 150 years ago.Same broad ideals(the details differ of course),same men.

I'm not sure what you are asking here, but I absolutely agree with the premises laid down in the article.

Blue

15 Apr 11,, 02:45

From a totally ignorant-on-the-subject pov I would answer that I fency the South (for their flag) and that the war was not about the human right or slavery, but purely for $$$ as all the other wars. What would that mean?

And I would say that your POV is not ignorant, but simply unclouded by looking at something for exactly what it is, in its simplest part. In other words, you CAN see the forest for the trees.

Blue

15 Apr 11,, 02:47

Eric,

I'm not surprised by the numbers. It goes back to our thread that discussed the Civil War narrative that you were taught growing up - there's a wide variety in how the subject is taught and thus, in how Americans interpret it. I'm sure that many of the folks who voted for state's rights don't realize that the first ever draft on our continent was implemented by the Confederacy or are aware of the other restrictions on personal rights that the Confederacy implemented. I'm also sure that many who voted for slavery probably believe that the North originally set out fighting for slavery when that just isn't the case. It'd be interesting to see what folks would answer in a free text form once you bring some of these facts to light.

OK.....but what did you think of the article? Do you find the similarities the author points to?

Shek

15 Apr 11,, 03:08

OK.....but what did you think of the article? Do you find the similarities the author points to?

Eric,
Sorry, must be the lack of sleep in the past few days with the kids converting to being solar powered (i.e., waking up at BMNT and refusing to fall asleep until EENT . . . at least their not pulling stand-to!). What similarities are you referring to?

Blue

15 Apr 11,, 03:37

I just realized that we are not looking at the same article. I assumed it was the same as it was linked to CNN and had a similar title. I have started a new thread to discuss this other article. Sorry, maybe I am the one that needs sleep?:redface:

I'm not sure what you are asking here, but I absolutely agree with the premises laid down in the article.

''When you hear charges today that the federal government is overreaching, and the idea that the Constitution recognized us as a league of sovereign states -- these were all part of the secessionist charges in 1860," she says.''

Sarge,I suppose you are in that camp,if I read you correctly.

Doktor

15 Apr 11,, 21:16

And I would say that your POV is not ignorant, but simply unclouded by looking at something for exactly what it is, in its simplest part. In other words, you CAN see the forest for the trees.

It's easy to see the forest when you are looking from a distance.

Mihais

15 Apr 11,, 21:26

... now I am a believer.

Тhink that the one missing the point here is you:rolleyes:

You were saying that when something cease to pose a threat becomes a history. I was referring to the Muslims in general and how the Ottoman Empire is history for a while, yet the fear of Islamisation of Europe still exists.

Good,the paradise will be yours.Can't offer virgins,though.They're in a short supply.:biggrin:

I thought we made it clear that the Islam vs Europe was much older than the Ottomans.Also there are a few tens of millions muslims that succeeded where Suleyman or Abdul Rahman failed,in settling parts of Europe.We have possibly a nascent geopolitical force South of Med. Sea.That's not a certainty YET. But who's going to bet that it won't become one.Europe will have a foreign competitor,an internal problem and a demographic crisis.
For somebody that prefers to think that things can only be rosy(generally speaking those tend to be also leftists),it seems impossible even to admit that those can be a problem.
We'll live and we'll see.

Blue

16 Apr 11,, 01:24

''When you hear charges today that the federal government is overreaching, and the idea that the Constitution recognized us as a league of sovereign states -- these were all part of the secessionist charges in 1860," she says.''